1994 (11) TMI 370 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the non- publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 equally be mandatory and its omission renders the declaration invalid? Held that - It is true that the language in Section 6(2) is in pari materia with Section 4(1). The purpose of publication of the declaration is to give effect to the conclusiveness of the extent of the land needed for the public purpose or for a company as made under Section 6(3) of the Act. Since there is an opportunity already given to the owner of the land or persons having interest in the land to raise their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A, or otherwise in case of dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A unless they show any grave prejudice caused to them in non-publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1), the omission to publish the substance of the declaration under Section 6(1) in the locality would not render the declaration of Section 6 invalid. We are not intending to say that the officer should not comply with the requirement of law and it is their duty to do it. But their dereliction to do so per se does not render the declaration under Section 6 illegal or invalid. Therefore, the word shall used in sub-section (2) of Section 6 should be construed to be only directory but not mandatory. Moreover, in this case, notice was issued to the respondent under Sections 9 and 10 pursuant to which they appeared before the LAO and put forth their claim and the award has already been made. As stated earlier, since there is an inter se dispute as regards the apportionment, the Land Acquisition Officer had already made the reference under Section 30 and deposited the compensation in the Court of District Judge along with the reference. High Court was clearly in error in quashing the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of publication of notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
2. Interpretation of the term 'shall' in statutory provisions.
3. Consequences of non-compliance with publication requirements under the Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the validity of the publication of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court noted that the publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) in the locality is mandatory to allow affected parties to file objections under Section 5-A. The Court emphasized that the purpose of such publication is crucial for landowners to exercise their rights effectively. The Court clarified that the word 'shall' in Section 4(1) should be construed as mandatory, ensuring proper notice to all parties involved.

In analyzing the term 'shall,' the Court highlighted that its interpretation as mandatory or directory depends on the legislative intent and the consequences of such interpretation. The Court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that when formalities are essential for the validity of an action, they are considered mandatory. However, if strict compliance causes undue inconvenience without furthering the statute's purpose, they may be construed as directory. The Court applied this principle to the present case, emphasizing the importance of the publication of notifications for affected parties.

Referring to a previous case, the Court discussed the significance of compliance with statutory procedures. The Court reiterated that while publication in official gazettes and newspapers is essential, local publication by methods like drum beating may be necessary for effective notice in rural areas. The Court clarified that a delay between gazette publication and local notification does not automatically invalidate the gazette publication.

Regarding the publication of the declaration under Section 6, the Court held that while it serves a specific purpose, non-compliance with its publication requirements does not necessarily invalidate the Section 4(1) notification. The Court reasoned that affected parties already have opportunities to raise objections during the acquisition process, and the omission of Section 6 notification in the locality does not render the declaration invalid. The Court concluded that the word 'shall' in Section 6(2) should be construed as directory, not mandatory, in light of the circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6. The Court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory procedures while considering the practical implications for all parties involved in land acquisition cases.